Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Crooked U.S. District Court
Clerk Drew Heathcoat (“deputy in charge”) in his private individual capacity and official
capacity. Defendant Heathcoat’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any
b. No “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Forger Wilkinson could be found in the official records of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida;
c. No mandated “July 2009 judgment” in the amount of “$5,048.60” had ever existed and/or
d. No lawful, legitimate, and authentic “writ of execution” was “issued” by any U.S. Court
of Clerk.
3. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat falsified official documents and records for criminal
and unlawful purposes of, e.g., obtaining unlawful benefits, extorting fees and property from
the Plaintiff whistleblowers, coercing the pro se Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution,
obstructing justice and the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs’ record
4. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat caused others such as, e.g., Defendants Kim Arnett and
Diane Nipper to falsify records such as, e.g., a non-authentic and non-genuine “writ of
5. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat caused others such as, e.g., Defendants Kim Arnett and
Diane Nipper to obstruct Plaintiffs’ filing of their pleadings and Notices of Appeal.
6. In July 2010, Crooked Heathcoat caused Arnett and Nipper to obstruct justice and
Plaintiffs’ filing of their “NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 213 …” for
criminal and unlawful purposes of concealing the prima facie illegal acts in this Court and
covering up for Defendant corrupt Judges, who on the record conspired to conceal the
7. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their
have meaningful court access, have electronic filing privileges, use the honest services of the
Clerk of U.S. Courts, be free of Government corruption, concealment, cover up, oppression
under, e.g., color of authority and office, fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “writ of
costs”.
2
RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS OF EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
8. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of express
Constitutional guarantees such as, e.g., the fundamental rights to due process and equal
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT
9. Defendant Corrupt Heathcoat conspired with other Officials and Defendants to extort fees
and Plaintiffs’ real property, unlawfully seize Plaintiffs’ record property under facially false
10. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat obstructed, delayed, and prevented the
and judicial Officials and Defendants. Specifically, Crooked Clerk Heathcoat refused to issue
a. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007-
b. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007-
cv-00228 revealed no record or entry of any valid “judgment in the amount of 5,048.60”;
c. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records revealed no record
11. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat obstructed Plaintiffs’ filing of their “NOTICE OF
APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 213 …”, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and obstructed,
3
delayed, and prevented the communication of crime information relating to the commission
of felonies and illegal acts by Government and judicial Officials and Defendants …